This Practice Note summarises the issues raised in relation to the English law and EU choice of law rules relating to the voluntary assignment of receivables (also known as debts) in the context of receivables financing whether by way of an outright assignment or an assignment by way of security. For the sake of simplicity, this Practice Note refers to outright assignments only but the principles apply equally to assignments by way of security. Exposure to export debts has historically been mitigated by spread, the reasonably modest amounts in question and export debt concentration covenants. However, as receivables financiers develop cross-border ambitions and enter into increasingly material financings, these historical approaches should be modified to mitigate against potentially significant exposures to non-UK receivables. There are potential risks involved with taking an assignment of export debts, the most obvious of these risks is that the assignment is open to challenge by a debtor in a collect-out. As between cross-border parties, appropriate local law advice must be sought

'Expose for sale' means exposed for the purposes of sale.

Exposure of an organism to a source of radiation characterised by the dose received. (a) External exposure: exposure from a radiation source located outside the organism. (b) Internal exposure: exposure from a radiation source located inside the organism.

A means by which radiation can reach humans.

Express authority describes the specific powers that a principal clearly grants to an agent or representative, usually in writing (for example in a power of attorney, agency agreement, board resolution or employment contract) but sometimes orally. It covers what the agent is expressly authorised to do on the principal’s behalf, as opposed to authority that is implied or arises by operation of law (such as apparent or ostensible authority, or agency of necessity).In practice, express authority is central to company law, commercial contracts, property transactions and litigation (for example, solicitors’ authority to act, or directors’ authority to bind a company). It determines whether the principal is bound by the agent’s acts and whether the agent exceeds their mandate.The concept is recognised and developed through case law rather than a single statutory definition, and is used consistently across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, though applied within each jurisdiction’s law of agency. Clear drafting and evidence of the scope of express authority are critical in disputes over validity of contracts, capacity to sign documents and liability for unauthorised acts.

Financial Services analysis: Karen Anderson, partner, and Elizabeth Head, of counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP consider the High Court decision Financial Conduct Authority v Papadimitrakopoulos and others including the Court’s interpretation of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 and the potential difficulties to which the Financial Conduct Authority’s dual track investigations into market abuse give rise where mutual legal assistance requests have been made.

An express contract is an agreement where the parties explicitly state their terms, whether in writing or orally, rather than leaving them to be inferred from conduct. In UK and Irish contract law, it contrasts with an implied contract, where obligations arise from circumstances or behaviour.Across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the concept is broadly consistent and largely derived from common law rather than specific statute. Courts look for clear offer, acceptance, consideration (or its Scottish equivalent, cause), and an intention to create legal relations, all manifested through express words.Express contracts commonly govern commercial transactions, employment, property, banking, consumer and IT arrangements. Key terms-such as price, duration, services, limitations of liability, dispute resolution and governing law-are usually set out expressly, reducing uncertainty and evidential risk in contractual disputes.In litigation and drafting, distinguishing between express and implied terms is critical for interpreting the parties’ rights, assessing breach, and determining available remedies. Standard form contracts, negotiated agreements, and many online terms and conditions are all typical examples of express contracts, even where accepted by a simple click or signature.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This was an appeal, pursued by trustees in bankruptcy, against a decision that a bankrupt had no beneficial interest in the (former) family home. There had been an express declaration of trust under which the couple held the property as joint tenants. At first instance, this was held to have changed as a result of a common intention constructive trust and/or proprietary estoppel arising at a later point in time, and in particular due to the separation of the bankrupt and his wife and their respective conduct thereafter. The trustees’ appeal was dismissed. It was held that an express declaration of trust concerning beneficial ownership of a property can be varied by something other than a formal agreement. Written by Nora Wannagat, barrister at 9 Stone Buildings.

This Practice Note describes the pilot express financial remedy (EFR) procedure for financial remedy applications involving combined net assets of less than £250,000 (excluding pension rights), in effect from 7 April 2025 via provision in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), namely FPR 2010, PD 36ZH. It considers eligibility for the scheme and exceptions, practical guidance and the interface with FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 9, together with FPR 2010, PD 9A (application for a financial remedy) and associated provisions of FPR 2010. The pilot scheme runs from 7 April 2025 to 2 April 2027. The objective is that eligible applications ‘will follow a new express financial remedy procedure with a view to further enhancing efficiency in the disposal of financial remedy cases’. FPR 2010, PD 36ZH—how it works, eligibility and exceptions FPR 2010, PD 36ZH does not make universally applicable changes to the relevant parts of FPR 2010 and its accompanying practice directions. Instead, selected provisions will be modified or disapplied in pilot cases only. It is therefore necessary to read FPR 2010, PD 36ZH alongside

Express notice describes a situation where a person is told, clearly and directly, about a legal right, claim, fact or restriction, so they have actual knowledge of it. It contrasts with constructive or imputed notice, where knowledge is attributed by law. Express notice commonly takes the form of a written notice under a contract, an email or letter identifying the relevant right, or wording apparent on the face of a document received.The term is descriptive and used across contexts. In unregistered land and equity, express notice prevents a purchaser claiming to be a bona fide purchaser without notice. In registered land (England and Wales/Northern Ireland), priority is governed mainly by registration rules (e.g. Land Registration Act 2002), but express notice may still be relevant to equitable claims and estoppel.Assignments frequently require express written notice to the debtor to be effective at law or to secure priority (e.g. section 136 Law of Property Act 1925 in England and Wales; equivalent statutory rules in Northern Ireland and Ireland). In Scotland, intimation to the debtor (now alternatively registration under the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Act 2023) serves a similar function.Contract schemes often require express notice to trigger termination, warranty claims or time bars; strict compliance with form, content, service and timing requirements is essential. Usage is broadly consistent across the UK and Ireland.

An express trust is created when a settlor or testator constitutes a trust with the express or inferred intention of creating a trust, whether by declaration of trust or by will, or by disposition of property to trustees or by will, in each case complying with the applicable formalities required by law.

IP analysis: This case involves an application for permission to appeal from an order for summary judgment given by Master Teverson in favour of the claimant to restrain the defendant from passing off, infringement of copyright and uttering malicious falsehoods. The defendant argued that his actions were a form of artistic expression, drawing on the earlier precedent of Nadia Plesner Joensen v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA [2011] ECDR 14, in which the defendant’s right to freedom of expression was deemed to outweigh the intellectual property rights of the claimant. This judgment, refusing the defendant permission to appeal, sheds light on the balancing exercise required to be undertaken in circumstances in which Articles 1 & 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights conflict. Written by Hallam Whitehead, solicitor at Knights.